America's rise to world power

America's Road to Becoming a World Superpower

This paper examines America's route to becoming a "Superpower," as seen in the way the United States acquired the Philippines as a colony in the early 20th century. It examines the many reasons both for and against the colonization of the Philippines. In the conclusion, this paper argues that for the United States, the road to becoming a world power is paved with arguments based on racism and ethnocentrism, as well as a paternalistic attitude towards societies whose values differed from those of traditional Americans.

Arguments for colonialism

Enshrined in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine was originally intended to prevent intervention by European powers, the same Doctrine to justify aggressive intervention by the United States. This policy of aggressive colonialism is a significant departure from previous foreign policies, which were based on coastal defense. The new century, however, brought on a changing global vision of United States security. Previously, the thought of an army and militia coming to the rescue was enough to make the American government feel secure. However, by the 1890s, the age of "big navies" meant that imperialist countries such as the United States could be threatened by conflicts that are occurring far from its shores, such as the Philippine War for independence from Spanish colonizers.

Thus, after avoiding international conflict for its first 100 years of existence, the United States joined the race for world power status in a bid to acquire colonies the Asia. One of the results of this change in foreign policy was the vicious war that the United States waged in the Philippines from 1899 to 1903.

Aside from justifying expansionism based on this perceived threat, many Americans saw colonialism as the natural duty of Americans. For example, Josiah Strong, author of the book Our Country, stated the conviction that as a superior civilized people, Anglo Saxons had a duty to ensure "that all men may be lifted up into the light of the highest Christian civilization." In this argument, the Protestant Christianity of the United States was seen as the epitome of civilization. This was in contrast to the backwards religions practiced in the Philippines -- Catholicism parts previously controlled by Spanish and Islam towards the south.

In addition to this sovereign duty, the acquisition of colonies also meant economic might. Republican Senator Albert Beveridge said in addition to bringing the light of civilization to lesser cultures, the United States stood to benefit largely from colonization. The United States had already acquired Hawaii and Puerto Rico. "The gates to Asia," reasoned Beveridge, meant that "coaling stations are to be ours at the very least." The opening of Asian market, beginning with the Philippines, meant new markets for domestic goods.

Argument against colonization

While the American government pursued this expansionist policy, many citizens expressed concerns and dissent, for many disparate reasons. Ironically, while expansionism was based on ideas of racial superiority, so did the counter-arguments. For example, labor leader Samuel Gompers argued against the acquisition of colonies, for fear of being swarmed by "the Negritos, the Chinese, the Malays" and the other "semi-savage races" from coming to the United States? Similar racist arguments were put forth by William Graham Sumner, a prominent Social Darwinist. While Sumber agrees with the argument that Anglo Saxons are a superior race, he also believed that colonization would interfere with the progress of the lesser race and may even disrupt the development of the Anglo Saxon civilization.

However, many prominent Americans also opposed American expansionism based on more lawful and humanitarian reasons. Republican Senator George F. Hoar, for example, argued that the acquisition of the Philippines based on Constitutional grounds. Hoar begins his argument by declaring that the Monroe Doctrine is no longer relevant, given the waning superiority of Europe. The senator stated that governing a people against their will was "expressly forbidden by the Constitution." Furthermore, he was critical of the warmongers in Congress, who proposed turning guns and cannons on another country, simply because "we think that our notion of government is better than the notion you have got yourselves."

The argument acquires more resonance upon proof of grave abuses committed by Americans, with the full sanction of leaders like Presidents McKinley and then Philippine Governor Taft. Army Sergeant Leroy E. Hallock, a soldier stationed in the Philippines during the war, testified in Congress regarding the torture that soldiers were instructed to commit. According to the report of the proceedings, "if the soldiers wanted to get any information out of the natives, they gave them the water cure." Any town that was suspected of harboring militia or insurgents was burned.